The Evolution of God

I just watched an outstanding interview with Richard Wright that dances through many of the concepts that Itamar and I are grappling with. Richard Wright just released a book called the Evolution of God that I am going to have to read now.

Itamar - watch this, the whole thing.

Link to Video on Bill Moyers Journal

Emotional Laziness

So why is the word 'God' such a big compromise of intellectual integrity? Well, clearly a picture of a bearded man in the sky has something to do with it. Most standard conceptions of God seem to fly in the face of science, the natural order of things, even just plain logic. But let's see if we can get more precise. Because I would argue that in the end Vijay's (and 1 year ago I would have said my) aversion to word 'God' is as much an emotional block as an intellectual one.

Let's put aside any concept of a God that hears prayers and intercedes in the events of our earthly lives. To me the big question is this: Is there a source of meaning outside of our brains?

For a while I maintained that there isn't, but I've come to feel that there is. And I've gotten there with experiences of wonder and with thoughts about complexity. Somehow the underlying fabric of the natural world is a dynamic cause of order and chaos, and we exist along a chain of increasingly complex evolutionary structures. And our structure is so complex that it is aware of itself and asks questions about its own formation. That part goes on in our brains but only as a result of the last 14 billion years or whatever.

Now, I didn't immediately name that source of meaning as 'God', and I'm still not super entirely comfortable with the word. But here's where I think the emotional block lies. If we think that our existence stands in relation to the structures and dynamics of all things, then the power of the 'act of naming' is not to just to connect to the other people around a shared name, but to connect emotionally to the source of it all.

To me this is only the beginning, because a concept 'God' does not predetermine the emotional relationship. It comes connected to, sometimes burdened by, all sorts of connotations and feelings: fear, awe, thanks, punishment, praise, humility, pride, love and on and on through almost all of them. And that's probably the power of the concept.

So Vijay, is there a source of meaning outside of our brains? And, if it's not already implied, is that source of meaning meaningful to our lives?

By the way, I'm starting to read GEB.

Leonard Susskind on the Universe and Everything

This guy gives some of the most lucid explanations of complex physics that I have heard. Itamar - this is the dude I was trying to remember at some point.

Link to Video on Fora.tv

Communicating Belief

I think one of the reasons that it took me so long to make this post is that I had never really thought about what prevents me from performing "the act of naming". And though I am by no means satisfied with my following thoughts on the matter, I think a good starting point is going back to the quandary of communicating my identity. Itamar might recall what I wrote in my previous post:

"I believe that a true sense of identity comes from being able to associate myself with a set of beliefs and being able to communicate the integral meaning of what I believe to others. Yet, I know that my beliefs are as pure and well-defined as any person who is able to identify themselves as a Buddhist, a Muslim, or otherwise."

What I intended to communicate (in my patented convoluted style) is that it is important for me to separate my need to find truth and the need to communicate that truth and connect with others who share that truth with me. What I am trying to argue is that the "act of naming" (to use Itamar's phase which I really like) constitutes a compromise between these two needs that I am unwilling to accept. More concretely, using the words "a sense of wonder" or "God" (or identifying myself using any phrase or word - other than human, of course) is demeaning to what I believe even though I might be tempted to throw up my hands and say "I give up, I hereby renounce my defiance to withhold from the act of naming!" I refuse to water down or hedge what I believe even if what I gain from engaging in the act of naming provides a mediocre foundation for the most precious of all things, and make no mistake, it is the most precious of all things - community and intimacy with other people.

I almost agree with the entirety of what Itamar means when he says:

"To me "God" is not a question of belief but a question of how you relate yourself to existence, to the universe, to people, to yourself."

I say almost because, on the contrary, I believe that "God" is a compromise between my relationship to existence, the universe, and to all my brothers and sisters and my own personal integrity. I feel as though I am being asked to name what I believe solely as a crude way of communicating my solidarity with other people (which is a noble cause) at the expense of the integrity of my individual beliefs. I like to think that the only way to build solidarity with others is through the still crude, but more honest medium of my actions rather than through naming.

And if pressed, I prefer words like compassion, love, humility, and sincerity to define my relationship with the universe. Clearly, many people who define their relationship with "God" would agree with the power of these words as well. However, if the step that I take from "compassion, love, humility, and sincerity" to "God" is not the dramatic compromise that I say it is, then that would mean that the "act of naming" has become so weakened by modern religion and spirituality that I fail to see the significance of the act. If "God", at this point, is just some abstract representation of the finite intersection of the values that most decent people in this world hold to define their common relationship with the universe that requires no compromise on my part, then it's a meaningless step. Otherwise, it is a compromise that I am not meant to make.